From an article in the New York Times titled:
Carrots, Sticks and Digital Health Records
When well designed and wisely used, computerized records have proved valuable in improving care. Doctors have more complete information in treating patients, reducing the chances of medical errors and unneeded tests.
But the success stories to date have come mainly from large health care providers, like Kaiser Permanente, the Mayo Clinic and a handful of others. Most physicians are in small practices, lacking the financial and technical support the big groups provide for their doctors. So it is scarcely surprising that less than 30 percent of physicians nationwide now use digital records. . . .
. . . Without a brisk market in information exchange, the campaign to adopt electronic records cannot really pay off. And more is needed than data-sharing standards and privacy and security protections, Dr. Blumenthal says.
The incentives have to change as well. Two hospitals a few miles apart, he notes, do not now view themselves as allies, but as competitors. To a doctor or a hospital, a patient is, among other things, a financial asset — and holding a patient’s information is valuable.
Insurers, he suggests, will have to pay for providers to share data or penalize them if they don’t. “Information exchange has to be a business goal, rather than a competitive threat, for this to work,” he says.
While digital is the future of many records, 70% of doctors have not migrated from their existing paper records. The only resource you have that is more valuable than your records is your and your staff's time. Dividers, indexes and filebacks save time by creating as many separate filing surfaces in one folder as needed. You can then sort by category and keep individual items in order in each section.